look long and that is something i try to look at. i want to be more proactive than reactive. i don't want to be surprised. the only time i like surprises on my birthday and christmas. i'm focused on how to stay ahead of these things and make sure we are doing everything we can to be ready. and be ready when the nation calls. [applause] >> thank you to the aspen security forum and thank you general brown for your excellent comments today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings . c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided, with no commentary,

no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span now is a free mobile app bring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washing, live and on-demand. deep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and scheduling information for c-span, tv network and c-span radio plus compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/c-spannow. your front row seat to

washington, anytime, anywhere. >> first c-span's coverage of the political party convention. we had to chicago for the democratic convention. watch live beginning august 19 as the party puts forth their presidential nominee. here leaders talk about the track record and their vision for the next four years as they fight to retain the white house. the democratic national committee been to in, live monday, august 19 on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. don't miss a moment. visit our website for the latest schedule update and catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by scanning the code.

>> c-span's washington journal, our live forum to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy. from washington and across the country. tuesday morning, campaign 2024 first with mike lauder, former communications director and special assistant to the trump-pence 2020. we will continue with a democratic poster and strategist. washington journal, join in the conversation tuesday morning on c-span. c-span now, our mobile app. or online at c-span.org. >> welcome back to "washington journal." we are joined by christopher, political science professor at the university of dayton. book called "do running mates matter." welcome to the program.

do running mates matter? >> good question. they do matter. not in the way people tend to think about it. even the discussion with kamala harris' be picked, some people are focusing on buying a state on the cheap through one piece of electoral strategy. we find evidence of that. we did not find you can pick off a group of voters that way easily either. where running mates matter is in terms of how we think of the presidential candidates. what does this pick tell us about kamala harris. what is j.d. vance tell us about a second donald trump term? it tells us something about the judgment and the priorities and the ideologies of the presidential candidate. especially with someone like kamala harris who is well known as the incumbent vice president, there is lot for people to learn

about her as a potential presidential candidate in her own right. i think this pic will help fill in the blanks and influence how voters respond to her. probably at the margins. host: let's talk about the vetting process. there is not a lot of time. typically there is more time. tell us what goes into that vetting process. what are they looking at. guest: there was a time when the vp was picked up the convention just as the presidential candidate was picked. it was a party choice in the moment. barely any time to consider. since the early 1970's the parties have changed the rules so now we have this process viewers are familiar with where whoever wins the primary any given state gets the delegates. that is why joe biden was entitled to the delegates based on the primary result. he had to release those delegates. for donald trump, if joe biden had stayed in the race, there is

time in between the presidential nomination being cited in the convention to that candidate. we are looking into everything. there political record. what about their public statements and private statements? what about their medical records and financial records. some candidates who have gone through this compared to a colonoscopy. invasive and intensive. it is a grueling process but the idea is to get the skeletons out of the closet before the campaign. if there is something that could be embarrassing or problematic, let's back that into choosing or not choosing this person or if we go with them we can leak that out before hand so it is known before the announcement is made. that is an important part of the process and kamala harris has a challenge because she has to rush that process. there is some time but not as

much time as usual. they have to be extra careful about not missing something. host: is the vetting process standard or does each candidate get to decide these are the things i want to know, these are the things not important to me? guest: it is ultimately up to the candidate. there is a set of procedures that have become familiar over time, and just like the power of the vice president's have grown over time these are informal changes that no one has to follow but it has come to be that way because it works to the advantage of the campaign. people have seen in the past that this process, even just leaking out names to the press, especially some campaigns often at odds with the press, they value that role of putting names out there so reporters can investigate these folks as well so members of the party can react and so on. this process serves the campaign well because they need to know what is wrong with this

candidate, there's something wrong with everyone. they need to know before they are stuck with that selection. some of the conversation going on right now, some people say donald trump might be regretting picking j.d. vance. once you make that choice and there is a nomination you're stuck with them. better get the stuff out of the way now. host: is mr. trump stuck with senator vance? could he switch him out or is it legally too late? guest: everything has pros and cons. i'm not saying trump is stuck with vance but some people are seeing it that way. he has been nominated. if he were to decide to make a change, i don't know how that would work. all of the given states, you have deadlines coming into play with the issue of whether joe biden was going to be on the ballot or some one else was going to be nominated. wave and early virtual rollcall in the democratic party. that could get tricky.

i would be shocked if donald trump were to replace j.d. vance. i think they are hoping it is just him getting his feet wet. it goes to illustrate j.d. vance has never been through a national campaign. that was one of the advantages of joe biden picking kamala harris. even though her primary campaign did not joelle she had been in the national spotlight and screwed night -- did not go well she had been in the national spotlight. by picking someone who had only run for one election in his lifetime, j.d. vance, 39 years old, knew the senate, trump took a risk and he is finding out what happens when you take that risk. some of the stuff you may not have known as well, you have to find out once you've made the pick. host: let's take a look at a portion of senator chuck schumer talking about that pic yesterday. [video clip] >> the addition of j.d. vance to this ticket is incredibly bad choice. i think donald trump, i know him

him and he is probably sitting and watching the tv and every day it comes out j.d. vance has done something workstream, more weird, more erratic, he seems to be more extreme than president trump. i bet president trump is scratching his head and wondering why did i pick this guy. the choice may be one of the best things he ever did for democrats. the president has about 10 days before the ohio ballot is locked in and he has a choice. does he keep vance on the ticket where he is already a lot of baggage, he will probably be more baggage over the weeks because we will hear more things about him, or does he pick someone new? host: what do you think of that? guest: i think the trump campaign could have priced a lot of these things in in advance. they had access to this information.

a lot of what we are hearing our comments made months or years in the past. they should've caught these things through the vetting process and i would assume they did know about it and they said his strengths overcome his weaknesses. i think they saw some strengths in j.d. vance about his ability to reassure the base of the party. he is someone who will be loyal to donald trump, who agrees with him on most policy, sometimes wants to go further. just walk something back like on abortion, for example. j.d. vance has the kind of strength for the campaign they wanted to run when joe biden was the candidate. it does get more complicated now that joe biden is not the candidate. may be running against kamala harris you want to pick someone different. i should mention donald trump, his other finalists were doug burgum of north dakota and marco rubio from florida. going along with my was saying before, i think those were much safer picks and probably better picks for donald trump.

this is not to say j.d. vance cannot be a good candidate or a vice president. that is a judgment call. in terms of his readiness to run a national campaign and serve a national office, he has been a senator for only a year and a half. that is the least amount of experience we have seen in a vice presidential candidate in modern times. that was a risk trump took. it would've been much safer picking someone else, especially marco rubio who as a quarter century of experience and had run a fairly successful national campaign for president in 2016. host: had you seen this pick coming budget mark the senator vance pick? guest: i spent the 2010s getting everything wrong about politics, the 20 20's have been going better. i expected kamala harris and j.d. vance. we will see how this goes. looking back at donald trump's experience with vice president mike pence who he now sees very poorly, to say the least.

he does not think well of that pic, he does not think well of mike pence. donald trump, mike pence is kind of a villain. is that because mike pence was disloyal throughout the campaign in 2016 and throughout his vice presidency? no. he was extremely loyal. he had one point where he was confronted with something donald trump asked him on january 6, trump asked him to do something that vice president pence did not have authority to do. mike pence chose to follow his constitutional authority rather than trump's orders and trump saw that as unforgivable. heading into this choice, i think what donald trump was saying is who is someone who no matter what i asked them to do will say yes, who will say yes to january 6 than area where mike pence said no? if you look at the resumes, that is what stands out about j.d.

vance. it is not his experience in office, it is not his accomplishments. what stood out about him is clearly in the way he talks about things in public, the way he was willing to go on any range of talk shows, from the far-right podcasted steve bannon to the sunday morning talk shows. he would stick up for donald trump in any situation, if not urge him to go further. that is what was appealing about j.d. vance. host: you can join the conversation if you would like to give us a call. our guest is christopher devine, political science associate professor at the university of dayton and co-author of the book "do running mates matter?" our phone lines are by party. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002. what do you think vice president harris needs to be looking at as

she makes that decision of a running mate and do you have a prediction? guest: my answer is based on my research. looking at past selections, we can show that this choice first and foremost has to be of someone who is clearly credible and ready to be president -- vice president or president if necessary. voters expect that above all else, above all types of ticket balancing. number one they want a credible vice president or president. if they doubt the qualifications of that person as people did in 2008 when it came to sarah palin, they will hold that against the presidential candidate who makes that choice. if kamala harris tried to be too clever and go pick off about ground state and pick somebody not up to the job and does not perform well, voters will look at that and say where is your judgment? were you just trying to win

election. she needs to show people that she is serious about governing. there are any range of qualified people, many on the short list, some not on the short list. she could pick someone who is ready for that. some are more serious than others. beyond that she might factor in other things. clearly we see in republican line of attack on kamala harris is that she is too liberal. she is a san francisco liberal. one way she could fight back a bit against that kind of take on her candidacy is to choose someone who is fairly moderate. she has some options. andy beshear in kentucky. josh shapiro in pennsylvania. mark kelly from arizona. these are people perceived as relative moderates. if she were to choose them some people would look at her and say everyone is in is really liberal but she picks this guy, maybe she is not so liberal. host: we he a text from

michael in florida who says, "you think president biden will transfer power to vp harris so she can run as an incumbent and vastly improve her odds to win?" guest: that is a great question. that is something i was wondering about after the june 27 debate when it seemed like president biden would drop out of the race sooner than he ended up doing. maybe give kamala harris the opportunity to run as an incumbent as the question references. traditionally incumbents do better. we see that not just in presidential races budding congressional races which is so at odds with the way we talk about talking about people in power, we want to throw the bums out, drain the swamp. look at reelection rates in congress. 2022 was the first time 100% of senators running for reelection won it. clinical scientists who study this found there is a bump that

typically goes with running as an incumbent. there is a question about whether that applies as much today as it did in the past. traditionally an incumbent does better. in this case one thing that is more difficult and i do not know if this is factored into president biden's decision is to take on the presidency and a campaign on accelerated timeframe all at once, maybe that is too much. to people who might be concerned if joe biden does not think he is up for another term even running as a candidate this time, why still serve as president? maybe he should not be in that role. i think that is a fair question but there may be other factors into why he did not make that choice. host: derek in williamsburg, virginia. republican. are you there? host: christopher in cumberland, virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. which presidential nominee do

you think was the most consequential and electoral history and by that i mean do you think it is ever actually had an impact on the outcome of an election? thank you for your time. have a good day. guest: thank you for the question. i think you meant vice presidential. there are a range of candidates who may have contributed to a campaign. it is hard to tell. lbj in 1960 is the one where people often say in a razor thin election that jfk won. maybe that is what delivered texas and deliver the presidency to john kennedy. this is something i've researched before and the evidence is pretty counterintuitive. we can show he was less popular in texas than the less of the south and less popular in the south and the rest of the united states. we doubt he delivered that, although there were some shenanigans he seemed involved

in in perhaps delivering some illegal votes. robert caro describes this in his book. that is one thing we can point to but maybe not for the normal reasons. in 1992, bill clinton chose al khor for vice president. that is relevant to what we are talking -- bill clinton chose al gore for vice president. it was a weird three-person race with ross perot and there. clinton chose a strategy -- instead of automatically trying to balance who he was, instead he chose someone who was a lot like him. a fellow new democrat. a relatively moderate southern democrat. what that did was double down on his campaign message about who he was, get across how he was distinctive to democrats they rejected in the 1980's.

kamala harris could choose to do the same thing. if it is part of who she is. people say you cannot pick gretchen whitmer because you have two women. i don't think that is necessarily true. if they judge gender is a strength for her in getting across the message about abortion, and i'm not saying this is the right move, but if they believe that, may be doubling down by picking not just gretchen whitmer for the ticket, but also someone who is dealt with abortion issues in michigan, maybe that actually strengthens their messaging and gets voters thinking about abortion that much more in this election. host: marco is next in highland, indiana. democrat. caller: you are really gorgeous. i just want to say that kamala harris should pick the governor from pennsylvania. i think that is very good chemistry with the both of them.

that is all i have to say. host: what you think of governor shapiro? guest: a couple points i will pick up on there. he is the governor of pennsylvania. that is something i think to bring into the conversation. as far as the buzz around various vp candidates, josh shapiro might be on the top of that list. a lot of folks think this is a good way to pick up pennsylvania. at electoral votes that could be crucial for kamala harris. i am skeptical about the home state advantage. there is very little evidence that you actually get this resolved. it requires -- that you actually get this result. it requires something strategic among voters. you can look at the candidate and say i prefer donald trump. imagine having a fellow

pennsylvanian as vice president of the united states. i don't think people operate that way. we get caught up in the sweepstakes discussions but i do not think the evidence supports it very well. josh shapiro has a lot of qualifications. he is a former attorney general. he is someone who has been high-profile in that state and voters think he is doing a good job. the latest polling, his approval rating was 61%. those are good reasons to pick him apart from being from pennsylvania. if the harris campaign is going to pick him they should do it because they would just as soon pick him if he was the governor of new jersey than pennsylvania. if it is based on primarily him being from pennsylvania, i think they're making a strategic mistake and should focus on someone's qualifications or other merits and not just based on the home state. if they hope to get a boost in that state as a bonus, maybe, find. that should not be the basis for

picking him or anybody else. host: let's look at what governor wes moore of maryland said yesterday. [video clip] >> you have said you are not interested in being vice president harris's vice presidential pick. what you think is important when she looks at a candidate? >> i have been very flattered by the level of interest and i absolutely love my job and i want to continue doing my job. the thing she needs to look for is the person that gives her a sense of comfort that this will be my partner in the work. i do not think she needs to go through an exercise of finding what boxes to check or what part of the country. the truth is that if you look at recent history, that has not been the case in recent history. the last time that impacted was maybe 1960. she has to pick someone she knows will be her partner and i think that is the only criteria

she should focus on. host: i take it you agree with governor moore. guest: i think that is a great way of looking at it. this personal probably not impact the election that much. running mates matter in a complicated indirect way. they tell you about the candidate. it will matter long-term. if this is someone who deserves to be president, we are talking about donald trump or kamala harris. if they deserve to be president they deserve to be president the need to demonstrate good judgment and leadership. are they choosing someone they could serve with well for four years. kamala harris would be especially sensitive to that argument. she knows what goes into the job . she thinks it is a very important role. i think she will be very serious about this choice. i am sure she will have campaign advisors and people she is meeting at these events who will tell her you have to do this strategically. the election is that important. it is.

it is easy to overstate the impact of the vp candidate. it is often understated, the importance of a vice president. she needs to pick someone who could help her govern for four years were beyond. host: we have this from bobby on x who says when the time for the republican convention was approaching and trumponomics selected avp word was vp does not matter -- and trump had not yet selected avp, word was the vp does not matter. why does it matter now? guest: home state advantage, there could be a time when that mattered more. if we look back to the 19th century when the vice president was not that powerful. that has changed a lot in the last half-century especially with jimmy carter and walter mondale. there was an argument that this person will not be consequential unless the president matters.

people were more identified with local geography. there was a time where people tended to identify with their state more so than the united states. there could have been a point where you could deliver that home stated manage by choosing someone from pennsylvania or new york or ohio or virginia. that might have mattered more than. these days i think it matters less who was on the ticket and more who is in the white house serving as vice president. you have those two changes going on at the same time that could guide the way we think about the choice. host: pact is a republican in new jersey. -- pat is a republican in new jersey. caller: i think the selection of al gore for bill clinton did a certain amount of ticket balancing because it gave him an amount -- someone with access to the federal government. in 1972 nixon won 49 states.

mcgovern picked tom eagleton. to that hurt him because they do drop that man from the ticket? guest: that is an excellent question. you're right on point. i appreciate you bringing up balancing federal versus state experience. that is something kamala harris should consider, she has federal government experience not state government. choosing someone like josh shapiro or andy beshear, someone with executive experience could be useful. however, that person also may not have foreign policy experience. that is why i think tim walz, the governor of minnesota. i think his greatest strength is he is not just data experience but also federal government experience, having served more than a decade in the united states house of representatives. to the point about 1972, lots of fascinating stories there and i love the vp history. happy to discuss some of that.

in 1972 george mcgovern who was very much the underdog in that race running against richard nixon chose thomas eagleton, the missouri senator for the vp slot. that was a rushed vetting process. party rules had changed but there were complications at the convention and he had to make that pick in 24 hours. he tried to get ted kennedy on board, he said no. other people said no, they thought it was a doomed campaign. eagleton, well-qualified senator , mcgovern shows him. soon after that it came out -- eagleton had not mentioned this -- it came out thomas eagleton had undergone electric shock therapy. there were concerns about what that might say about his ability to serve well in office. much more complicated story than this. i think it is the 18 day running mate i would encourage people to read.

he was then taken off the ticket even though mcgovern had said i am 1000% behind thomas eagleton. two days later he dropped him from the ticket and picked sargent shriver instead and they would go on to lose 49 states. host: darrell in north carolina. independent line. caller: while discourse on this topic is very important, especially as we approach our elections, do you think it was fair to disparage senator vance, questioning his character and integrity without providing any support, and does this not increase or decrease the divide within the electorate? is it no wonder we have a lack of trust in government media and education? why is it only one party is always portrayed as evil and the other party is portrayed as

divine? thank you. host: elaborate a little on what you mean by the criticism on senator vance's character? caller: your guest spoke of senator vance as being nothing more but a mere puppet to donald trump, that he would not stand by his own integrity and conventions as a public servant. he is a first-term senator and i have seen nothing that would suggest that. for your guests to demonize someone like that, i do not think that helps us to understand the importance on understanding the issues of this election. host: let's get him to respond to that. guest: i never used the word puppet. i am saint j.d. vance has not demonstrated he would say no to donald trump.

he could demonstrate that or challenge him on something at this point. one thing i will point to that was especially alarming is after the shooting of donald trump, his assassination attempt, and before any facts were known about the shooter j.d. vance went on social media to blame it on the biden campaign and say they were directly to blame. that shows eagerness to escalate things that i think is concerning a potential vice president and the fact he did that in the last days but dishing for the role says something about what j.d. vance expects donald trump would value in avp. someone who would double down rather than taking opportunities to lower the temperature. guest: -- host: i just want to show this. this is an axios article. according to the biden campaign "j.d. vance would do what mike pence would not on january 6.

donald trump pit j.d. vance because vance would do what mike pence would not. enable trump and the extreme maggot agenda even if it means breaking the law." that is according to the trump campaign. there is what senator vance said in an interview with abc's george stephanopoulos. "if i had been vice president, i would have told the states like pennsylvania, georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and i think the u.s. congress should have fought over it from there." that is what he has said about that situation. connie in tucson, arizona. democrat. you are next. caller: i would love to have mark kelly as our vice president. anyone out there would be a good one. one of the thing that bothers me about trump same people with

different languages are coming, he is terrified of other languages. he does not know how to explain himself. he was talking about argentina as if argentina was a man, not a country. he did not know puerto rico was part of the united states. he is the most illiterate person talking about world affairs and he has nothing nice to say. i just like so much that he pushes women down. he wants to keep us down on her knees and that is unacceptable, not america. the documents he took were just dismissed, he took the most documents of anyone in the history of the united states. what did he plan to do with it? he needs to answer to that. he is a rapist.

why we choose a president who is a rapist. host: she did mention senator kelly in arizona. guest: i think he is a very interesting choice. it is not at all clear who is going to be picked but he strikes me and a lot of other people as perhaps the likeliest, perhaps the safest pick. every candidate has their pros and cons. what is attractive about mark kelly is that he is from arizona -- i would not put much stock in that changing things. he is known as a relative moderate. maybe that would help kamala harris if she is perceived as too liberal. foreign policy and federal experience. mark kelly is not served in state office and has not been a governor and does not have executive experience, but he is someone who has served in the federal government, only four years. he has won too top races and has campaign experience and foreign-policy experience. beyond that he was a fighter

pilot, extensive military experience, and an astronaut, so he is someone with extensive public service records but different from what we might see from people who have served in government. kamala harris will have to weigh all of those things. one thing to factor in with him, he is very much identified with gun control issues. is the husband of gabby giffords who was shot a dozen years ago and very seriously injured. they have campaign for gun control. that will encourage some voters. it might alienate some voters more in favor of gun rights. also on immigration issues where there is a weakness for the biden administration, he is a border state governor so he could speak to those issues a little better than some other candidates kamala harris could pick. host: houston, texas.

republican. caller: i just wanted to remind people that they need to do their research on our candidates. for harris, she has already picked her team. you had a c-span program hey while back where they were already saying who was going to be what if she is elected. people are not doing their research to find out who is running and who will be elected. they are doing everything possible. they are traveling the united states and they are bringing their nationality into ours and taking it. they are taking away rights. they will say how it is going to be and why it is going to be. turning our insurance down. putting us on one insurance and a million other things people better be alert to.

thank you. host: your comments? guest: i don't know what she is talking about. host: ok. caller: good morning to c-span listeners and your guest. i have one recommendation. the first question is in history has there ever been a president that elected the vice president of the other party? is that something that can be done now? is that something that can be done now if kamala harris decides she wants to have bipartisanship in the white house. is that something she can do? my recommendation is sheldon whitehouse. i think he would be a superb vice president and in the event he had to take the position as president he would be able to deal with the foreign leaders as

well as our foreign adversaries. thank you so much to c-span. you do a great job of letting everyone in america voice our opinions. i will take the answer off-line. host: go ahead. guest: i love that question. i love the vice presidential history. a couple come to mind. in 1864 abraham lincoln was running for reelection and he dumped his vice president hannibal hamlin, a buys presidential name and picked andrew johnson -- a great buys presidential name, and picked andrew johnson who had served as a democrat. they run together on a union party ticket, trying to make a statement as a wartime president and not a party president. he picks johnson who is from tennessee and sticks with the union states in the senate. they run together as a bipartisan ticket, a republican and democrat together.

after lincoln was assassinated johnson takes over and takes things in a different direction than lincoln would have an turns out to be probably our worst president. in 2004, john kerry reportedly offered the position to john mccain. i still wonder if this could actually be true. i do not think that kind of choice is received well within a party. that is the report we get. it could be a way of making a statement about bipartisanship and also about ideology. would kamala harris do it? i doubt it. it is something to keep in mind about choosing someone relatively moderate and this could apply more realistically to andy beshear. although that could be appealing, bipartisanship, that could be appealing to general election voters, especially undecided voters in the swing es who are clearly not far to the left or right by and large. that could be appealing there

but you always risk alienating the base of the party. part of the challenge is holding together a coalition of people within the party that are there for different reasons. some people are further to the left or more towards the center, vice versa for the republican party. if you go too far you could alienate some people who prefer you on balance, could be unwilling to vote in that case or maybe we go with a third-party candidate. that is something she needs to balance out carefully. host: how do you think the media should cover the selection of a running mate? do you think there should be more focused on their policy, their experience? guest: that is near and dear to my heart. news media coverage of the vice presidential selection department. my conclusion, and this is looking at actual media coverage from 2000 to 2020 and looking at

the things journalists tend to bring up when they cover potential running mates. you're seeing it now. pros and cons, mark kelly, here are the pros and cons come andy beshear, so on. i could track what they talked about. they mostly talked about electoral considerations. who could help win the election. they talked too little about experience and qualifications. one of the juicier findings there is that journalists were as likely to talk explicitly about whether someone is qualified to be vp or president as they were to talk about their physical appearance. a lot of the stuff is very superficial. i do see some improvement may be in the last cycle or two without journalists talk about vice presidential candidates. i would encourage that more and more. that is why i'm out here today and doing as many as i can.

we need to think seriously about this. not overstating the electoral impact. that is done too often. let's talk more about qualifications, who can govern, what it tells you about the leadership of the presidential candidate. that is what matters to voters in the long-term interests of the country. host: this is anne, a republican in tennessee. caller: first i want to say good morning to my good friend carol. i want to ask this gentleman if he thinks kamala harris added anything. all she was famous for was raising bail money for criminals and wanting to defund the police. she said more cops do not make the streets safer but she has security all around her. she also wants to take away guns but i guarantee her secret service has guns. people need to look at her policies. guest: i will go to the question

part. what did she add to the ticket? that is a good question. all these conversations about what impact, i go back to the conventional wisdom, these assumptions about what would matter or did matter last time and that is why look to look at the evidence. my co-author and i look at analysis of why people voted the way they did. in kamala harris's case the perception was she would help by and among women voters and black voters. those are groups that lean towards democratic voters, could she help that much more? this is a study we did in the process of our book. we looked at her affect on black women voters in particular compared to the general electric -- compared the general electorate? did she have more of an impact on those groups than anyone else? yes she did. she seemed to increase joe

biden's advantage among women and black voters, but not by much. in the past when we looked at what we call targeted effects, women vice president candidates, 1984 geraldine ferraro, 2008 sarah palin, did they help with women? no. no evidence of that. this perception that a candidate because they belong to this group they will help with that group, they will choose the vote with that group, that does not always turn out to be true. mike pence in 2016. everybody knows he delivered evangelicals, right? no. when we dug into the evidence we were able to pick up on survey evidence of the same people over time throughout the campaign focusing on evangelical voters. we did not see any spike in support for donald trump following his selection of mike pence among evangelicals. they probably came around to trump for other reasons, in particular because they tend to be republican and that is what

decides how people vote, their partisan predisposition. they might latch onto a vp choice and say that is why i did it, that person is from my state and they share my view on this. usually that is way of rationalizing a choice they were always going to make. host: before i let you go, your newest book is called "i'm here to ask for your vote, how presidential campaign visits influence voters." how do they influence voters? guest: there you go with the conventional wisdom about what really matters, that may be trump's rallies decided the 2016 election or the tag on joe biden about staying in his basement was decisive. what i find in this research is campaign visits usually do not have much of an effect overall, possibly because you have both candidates campaigning pretty heavily. maybe if someone drops off you see more of an effect. when campaign visits influence people, and here i think it is more interesting, it tends to

happen not by mobilizing voters, people tend to think they must have rallied the base of the party and gotten people who already agreed with trump but were not sure if they were going to vote, got them out to vote. there is not with the evidence indicates. there are more effective at persuading voters. some people might not have their mind made probably they are hearing about it from local media and are influenced by a friend. people sometimes do change their mind. let's hope people are critically evaluating what they see. whether that is a vice president pick or campaign manager. host: the co-author of the book to running mates

>> washington journal. involving you to discuss the latest issues and government, politics, and public policy from washington on across the country. tuesday morning, we talk about campaign 2024 first with a former communications director and special assistance to the trump 2020 campaign. then we continue with democratic strategist carly cooperman. washington journal. join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪